Summation and Clarification Regarding California Bill AB 390

[jawnroot]

It seems there's a lot of confusion over this bill. To be blunt, anyone that doesn't see this as a great thing is suffering from one of the following conditions:

A.) Has not read the full text of the bill.
B.) Does not understand the bill.
C.) All of the above.

I think the biggest misconception is the fact that the vast bulk of this bill is the existing section 68152 of the Government Code. Parts of that code are amended (via strike-through) to reflect the omission of marijuana-related crimes/regulations. In other words, there aren't new laws being added in the criminal code, but an updated Government Code with MJ crimes REMOVED.

To emphasize, page 6, line 24 (beginning of Section 4), to page 34, line 20 (of a 41 page bill), is a complete rehash of 68152, with MJ laws REMOVED.

Here is a complete summary of the bill, with relevant details:

Page 3: Lines 35-40 = Lists costs associated with a cultivation license, which are completely reasonable and in line with costs associated with a brewer's/distiller's license.

Page 4: Lines 1-6 = Highlights the need for a background check when applying for a cultivator's license. This is a requirement for all fields where consumable products are being handled. Reasonably, I'd want someone of sound mind and constitution growing my MJ. All of the justifications the state offers for this are well within tolerance. These regulations would NOT be imposed upon private growers.

Page 11: Lines 35-36 = Marijuana paraphernalia specifically REMOVED from the purview of the law.

Page 12: Line 2 = Continues above.

Page 16: Line 17 = Controlled substances act altered to state only synthetically produced THC is regulated under the drug act/illegal.

Page 17: Line 25-40 = All penalties related to cannabis removed.

Page 18: Line 1-20 = Above con't.
Line 22 to 30 = Fines remain for MJ on school premises (no prison, etc)...similar to alcohol in this regard.

Page 19: Line 8-12 = Penalties associated with the private cultivation of marijuana completely removed.
Line 14-16 = Penalties removed for the sale of marijuana.
Line 19-36 = Trafficking laws removed.
Line 39-40 = Laws associated with minors removed (but elaborated upon later in the bill).

Page 20: Line 1-12 = Con't with above.

Page 21: Line 28-30 = Sifters/seed separators/gins and similar devices removed from paraphernalia.

Page 22: Line 18 = Roach clips specifically removed from paraphernalia.

Page 26: Marijuana removed from property forfeiture laws.

Page 27: Line 19-24 = Testing regulations removed for MJ, effectively making it impossible for cops to seize plants/bud.

Page 28: Line 13-35 = Property seizures/auctions related to MJ operations specifically removed.
Line 40 = Seizures again outlined and removed.

Page 31: Line 7-31 = Level 1 - 4 offenses associated with marijuana sale and cultivation removed.

Page 33: Line 37-38 = Marijuana removed from conspiracy-related charges.

Now the bill specifically enumerates marijuana RIGHTS and REGULATIONS.

Page 34: Line 21 = Highlights the new MJ code.
Line 34-35 = Lawful for a person 21 or older to possess or transport MJ.
Line 36-20 = Lawful to sell, provided seller is in compliance with the reasonable regulations outlined in the bill (akin to alcohol regs).

Page 35: Line 6-11 = Lawful to smoke, provided it's not in public (ie: no public imbibing or intoxication, just like alcohol).
Line 14-17 = Lawful to be high/intoxicated on MJ.

Here is one part on page 35 I wanted to specifically copy and paste:

11725. It is unlawful for a person not licensed pursuant to
Chapter 14.5 (commencing with Section 25400) of Division 9 of
the Business and Professions Code to cultivate marijuana, except
in compliance with the following requirements:
(a) Marijuana may be cultivated only by persons 21 years of
age or older.
(b) Marijuana may be cultivated only in a location in the home
or yard in which the marijuana is not visible from any public place.
For purposes of this paragraph, “public place” does not include
air space, or any place from which a viewer would violate the
cultivator’s legitimate expectation of privacy.
(c) Each person 21 years of age or older may have in cultivation
no more than 10 mature plants at any given time.
(d) A licensed nursery may cultivate seedlings for sale to persons
21 years of age or older, but shall destroy any seedling if it has not
been purchased by a consumer before it reaches maturity.
(e) Aside from the sale of seedlings by a licensed nursery,
marijuana cultivated pursuant to this section may not be sold.
(f) The presence of persons younger than 21 years of age in a
household does not affect the lawfulness of the cultivation of
marijuana under this division.
11726. (a) Unlawful cultivation of marijuana is an infraction,
punishable by a fine of up to one hundred dollars ($100).
99

Page 37: Line 12-15 = Tax exemption for medical users.
Line 22-26 = Tax of $50 per ounce, above and beyond state taxes and the actual retail cost of the MJ itself.

Page 38: Line 17-27 = Tax may be lowered below $50 if the board feels that would satisfy the needs of the program, but not above.

The rest of the bill deals primarily with the fact that you cannot be intoxicated on MJ and drive.

So in summation, if you're of legal age, smoke/grow, and you DON'T support AB 390...then there is something seriously wrong with you.

 

[Koroz]

Thanks for this post, as I said in another post:

This bill would not hurt me, a personal smoker in the least. It would allow me to smoke with out having to falsify (which I wont do) an injury to get a med card.

It would allow me to grow, non taxed, a small group of plants for personal consumption and I would not be risking my house or family in the process.

Its unfortunate that I am sort of selfish, but I could careless about the large scale growers for cash, I think you should have the right to grow for money and to support yourself, but If you want to now you can legally by paying a tax.

I think its a win win for everyone. Since they aren't messing with the medicinal cannabis users, or caregivers I just really fail to see how this is a bad thing.

 

[medmaker420]

There are pros and cons to the bill for sure BUT I see far more Pros in the end so I will support it and deal with the "what about this part" shit later on down the road. Amending a bill will be easier to do than starting and passing one.

 

[jawnroot]

Where are the negatives? I'm having a hard time spotting any.

 

[medmaker420]

Where are the negatives? I'm having a hard time spotting any.

Wait til the bill gets stuffed with everything, there will always be a negative to a bill for someone whether personally or politically.

A perfect scenario is no tax and free legalization, that isn't going to happen so the con that I see is the taxation of it and odds are still the income generation that they will push on possession and public intox arrests like they do with alcohol.

It will be a huge income generator and if the income isn't generated enough what will they do? raise the taxes and fines of course.

There are plenty of potential cons to this bill but nothing that will keep me from not supporting it.

I am 100% for this bill, my personal issues with this and that doesn't matter until it actually gets heard and voted upon by those who will be allowed to do so and if it were perfect then they would simply leave it up to the people of the state to vote for it. I don't see politicians giving real power to the people anytime soon.

A political move to fix a broken economy BUT better than starting another war.....

 

[jawnroot]

A perfect scenario is no tax and free legalization, that isn't going to happen so the con that I see is the taxation of it and odds are still the income generation that they will push on possession and public intox arrests like they do with alcohol.

Public intoxication is illegal. If you're doing it, you're breaking the law, and putting yourself at risk of getting caught.

It will be a huge income generator and if the income isn't generated enough what will they do? raise the taxes and fines of course.

The tax is capped at $50 an ounce, as per this bill. That means that the tax cannot be raised over that point.

Before descending into a series of sundries and notions, let's focus on the letter of the bill and go from there. People cannot reasonably expect to have their cake and eat it too.

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

I must be missing something, because the way it sounds
nothing will change in CA except that now on top of sales tax
we also have to pay a cannabis tax? and they expect growers to
have cultivation liscnense ((which i assume WONT be free))...


do i have to bring my marijuana into the white house so i can get my
tax stamp for it as well??? fuck this is starting to sounds like another
history repeat::

>>>on top of everything;;; what will keep the feds from
telling us AB is just like P215 and SB420 ?? im all for eradicating penalties
for use, sale,traffik and cultivation::: but this sounds like we will tax you to
grow it,,,tax you to sale it,,, then arrest you for growing and selling...

 

[jawnroot]

If you don't want to read the bill, then at least read my summation of it above. Personal growers WILL NOT need a license, only commercial growers. The commercial license will be effectively the same thing as a brewer's/distiller's license, and cost about the same.

The fact of the matter is, most people do not grow their own weed, just as most people do not brew their own alcohol. The tax revenue will be from the 95% of smokers that buy it. There will be no tax on personal cultivation, just as there is no tax on home brewing.

 

[Koroz]

I must be missing something, because the way it sounds
nothing will change in CA except that now on top of sales tax
we also have to pay a cannabis tax? and they expect growers to
have cultivation liscnense ((which i assume WONT be free))...


do i have to bring my marijuana into the white house so i can get my
tax stamp for it as well??? fuck this is starting to sounds like another
history repeat::

/snip

>>>on top of everything;;; what will keep the feds from


telling us AB is just like P215 and SB420 ?? im all for eradicating penalties
for use, sale,traffik and cultivation::: but this sounds like we will tax you to
grow it,,,tax you to sale it,,, then arrest you for growing and selling...

way to not read the bill then post about it like you know what it says!

Here is the part of the bill that you speak of making you a criminal for... oh wait no it doesn't:

11725. It is unlawful for a person not licensed pursuant to
Chapter 14.5 (commencing with Section 25400) of Division 9 of
the Business and Professions Code to cultivate marijuana, except
in compliance with the following requirements:
(a) Marijuana may be cultivated only by persons 21 years of
age or older.
(b) Marijuana may be cultivated only in a location in the home
or yard in which the marijuana is not visible from any public place.
For purposes of this paragraph, “public place” does not include
air space, or any place from which a viewer would violate the
cultivator’s legitimate expectation of privacy.
(c) Each person 21 years of age or older may have in cultivation
no more than 10 mature plants at any given time.
(d) A licensed nursery may cultivate seedlings for sale to persons
21 years of age or older, but shall destroy any seedling if it has not
been purchased by a consumer before it reaches maturity.
(e) Aside from the sale of seedlings by a licensed nursery,
marijuana cultivated pursuant to this section may not be sold.
(f) The presence of persons younger than 21 years of age in a
household does not affect the lawfulness of the cultivation of
marijuana under this division.
11726. (a) Unlawful cultivation of marijuana is an infraction,
punishable by a fine of up to one hundred dollars ($100).
99

 

[Military]

im excited :-D

 

[GET MO]

Would I still be able to grow my own medicine? I dont want nobody else growin my shit and if they make it illegal for me to grow again Ill go back to being illegal...again.

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

way to not read the bill then post about it like you know what it says!

Here is the part of the bill that you speak of making you a criminal for... oh wait no it doesn't:

unless holder and obama stick to their word then this bill will mean
absolutely nothing. it will be the same likes as P215 and SB420
where one will trump the other,,, and we still back to raids. and obama
even went on to say they will raid anyone they think who is "involved
with illegal activity">>which means you get hit,, you will have to go to court
to prove that you are not in conspiracy or involved with said charges...
why do they have to dance around it so much? even holder looked like his
brain was going to have an aneurysm from having to repeat obamas plans
to end the raids... like i said,, i would love to see the crimes attached to
the sale, use, cultivation and traffic of cannabis abolished. but im not
going to dance the happy dance until it is chiseled in rock....

 

[ourcee]

but im not
going to dance the happy dance until it is chiseled in rock....

yes this bill is great for the movement and I support it 100%.... but do you actually think its gonna pass the first go around?



as much as I'd love to say yes, the reality of the matter is that there is no way in hell this will get approved on the first try. Yes we have quite a few states passing the MMJ legislation.... barely.... but full scale legalization like alcohol or tobacco??

far too many people in a position of power still cling to the reefer madness view of "drugs" meanwhile they are popping vicodin or valiums all day long.

The thought of a few sick people, as per a doctors recommendation, tokin every once in a while is gaining ground in tolerance.

however

the reason I think this bill wont pass the first go around (till MMJ is more widely accepted and the science is brought into mainstream rather than propaganda) is because "legalization" in the eyes of Senators and LEO is nowhere even close to the thought process regarding alcohol or tobacco regulation (like it should be).

Its still treated VERY differently and will continue to be until the people that are in power, realize that it is in fact no different (unless by different you mean less harmful in pretty much every way possible.... )

this bill unfortunately won't get approved if there is a two sided battle to it. I.E. Legalization vs Criminalization, like there is now. It needs to be KNOWN as fact, not just some "spin" from either group, the pros and cons of this.

Obviously since you're on IC mag you probably know more of the pros than your local legislator... THATS the problem with this bill.

you can tell the world that this can and will solve a LOT of problems (like it truly will) but until they believe it themselves, its too risky of a political move for the MAJORITY to favor it.

 

[jawnroot]

This bill has gone through before, in '04. And I believe it may have gone through one other time as well.

The fact of the matter is, the people are ready for legalization, particularly in California. Give our dour economy, I think this has a chance of eking its way through.

We'll see...I'll be following this one very closely.

 

[jawnroot]

Would I still be able to grow my own medicine? I dont want nobody else growin my shit and if they make it illegal for me to grow again Ill go back to being illegal...again.

Yes, you'll be able to grow your own medicine. And guess what? You won't be taxed a dime on it, and you won't have to go to the doc every year to get your rec updated. Money in your pocket, my man.

If you have a chance, read the summary of the bill (above) carefully.

 

[larry badiner]

Would you mind if i posted your summation on my wiki? it'd be at the site in my sig under ab 390

 

[MedResearcher]

Each person 21 years of age or older may have in cultivation
no more than 10 mature plants at any given time.


I didn't read the full text, just the summary. So correct me if I am wrong. We will have to buy a license to cultivate, then pay tax of 50 bucks an ounce, and only be allowed to grow 10 plants.


The license and tax sound good to me, California needs income. Although a plant limit, let alone a 10 plant limit is ridiculous. My county already allows 25 plants per parcel, and charges a 50 bucks per plant tax, and honestly that isn't nearly enough for indoor gardening. Besides the fact that it will give LEO the right to go around counting plants.. what a waste of time. If your gonna legalize, legalize it, tax the hell out of it, but allow it to be free enterprise.


Its like they have been studying the market since 215 passed, by raiding and stealing all the data of the clubs. Now they are attempting to take a huge % of the business profits, while at the same time keeping the supply way down so the prices remain sky high.

10 plants per cultivator, sorry guys guarantee it will still be 50 an eighth. Sure grow your own, you don't have to pay. Some people don't have the time, space, or know how to produce quality product. When I want a beer, I don't brew my own, I go buy a Sierra Nevada. If beer companies were limited to brew space that beer would cost 50 dollars to.

No disrespect,
Mr^^

 

[jawnroot]

Each person 21 years of age or older may have in cultivation
no more than 10 mature plants at any given time.


I didn't read the full text, just the summary. So correct me if I am wrong. We will have to buy a license to cultivate

No, you won't need a license to cultivate if you are a personal grower. You will only need a license if you are a commercial grower, just like any brewer/distiller.

then pay tax of 50 bucks an ounce, and only be allowed to grow 10 plants.

You only pay tax if you're buying the finished product in a store. The ten plant limit is perfectly reasonable. Ten flowering plants at once, are you kidding? You could set it up to harvest one plant a week and still be under the limit of 10 flowering plants at any given time. That's at bare minimum 2 oz a week, depending upon your setup. That's over 104 ounces a year, conservatively speaking, TAX FREE. For my own personal use, I wouldn't need anywhere even remotely close to that -- even if I was supporting other smokers.

By contrast, home brewers are only allowed to brew 100 gallons a year. I don't know about you, but an ounce of pot lasts me at least as long as a gallon of beer (less than a 12 pack).

Realistically, if you and yours are smoking more than 2 ounces a week, there's a problem. 10 flowering plants at any given time is a perfectly reasonable limit. Hell, I'd even call it generous -- it's almost double the current medi limit (6 plants).

Again, you can't expect to have your cake (legalization) and eat it too (personal plantation with no government regulation).

 

[jawnroot]

Would you mind if i posted your summation on my wiki? it'd be at the site in my sig under ab 390

Feel free to post it anywhere and everywhere.

 

[MedResearcher]

The ten plant limit is perfectly reasonable. Ten flowering plants at once, are you kidding?

So I guess the government should cap how many prescription pills we can take per year also. Why special treatment with one of the safest drugs on the planet? Who are you or anyone to say how much medicine someone needs, except a doctor. I know many people that only consume edibles, it takes a lot of herb to make edibles, and as you build a tolerance you can eat more and more, just like a patient who uses Oxycoiton, Vicoden, etc.. etc..

Hell, I'd even call it generous -- it's almost double the current medi limit (6 plants).

Just so you are aware of the current laws, 6 plants is the state minimum. If your doctor or county allows more, then you are allowed more. The minimum was set to protect patients from counties who tried to make zero tolerance laws. There is a huge difference between indoor and outdoor plants, capping the plant number is just proof of the ignorance of the bill.

Again, you can't expect to have your cake (legalization) and eat it too (personal plantation with no government regulation).

I am not sure where you got your degree from, but both licensing and taxation are forms of government regulation.


You can spew false information until your blue in the face. The fact is, this bill is a slap in the face to many patients as well as our Constitution and American rights. You have to think of everyone, and not just a select group of people who would benefit from this.

This law would keep prices sky high, even higher then they are now. Sure grow your own.... what if you cant or don't want to? You ever try growing your own medicine while going through chemo therapy and vomiting 10 hours a day?

MR^^